Philippines: Supreme Court Ruling: Online Chat Logs and Videos as Evidence in Criminal Proceedings
We published a newsletter regarding Supreme Court Ruling: Online Chat Logs and Videos as Evidence in Criminal Proceedings. To view PDF version, please click the following link.
→Supreme Court Ruling: Online Chat Logs and Videos as Evidence in Criminal Proceedings
Supreme Court Ruling: Online Chat Logs and Videos
as Evidence in Criminal Proceedings
February 2025
One Asia Lawyers Philippines Team
Yasuaki Nanba (Japanese Lawyer)
Masami Oba (Attorney in the Philippines)
1. Overview
On 3 December 2024, the Supreme Court of the Philippines published a press release containing a discussion and summary of their ruling with regard to the admissibility of online chat logs and videos as evidence in a criminal case, reiterating that “online chat logs and videos as evidence does not violate the right to privacy if they are used to determine if a crime has been committed”.
In the above case of People v. Eul Vincent O. Rodriguez, (G.R. No. 263603, October 9, 2023), the accused was charged with qualified trafficking of persons under Republic Act (RA) No. 9208, as amended, for which certain electronic evidence were claimed as violation of the accused’s right to privacy.
2. Social media chat logs and videos
Pursuant to an entrapment operation, a Police Officer, assigned by the Anti-Human Trafficking Task Force of Region 7, created a decoy account to contact the accused in connection with acts involving exploitation of minors. The Officer communicated with the accused through Facebook and Skype, where the officer posed as an interested client.
The chat and video logs were saved, printed, and later submitted as evidence in the criminal case. The accused opposed the admissibility of the aforesaid evidence, raising violations of his right to privacy through: (1) violation of the Anti-Wire Tapping Law, and (2) violation of the Data Privacy Act of 2012 (DPA).
3. Anti-wire tapping (RA No. 4200)
The accused argued that the recording of Skype conversations and pictures is an act of wire-tapping punished under the Anti-Wire Tapping Law, and accordingly, inadmissible as evidence.
The Supreme Court rejected the above argument, explaining that the use of “device of arrangement” in the law “should be construed to comprehend instruments of the same or similar nature” (i.e. instruments tapping the main line of a telephone, or instruments with the purpose of tapping, intercepting or recording a telephone conversation). The Court denied that recording a Skype conversation is of such similar nature as tapping the main line of a telephone.
4. Data Privacy Act of 2012 (RA No. 10173)
The Supreme Court explained that the recorded chat logs and videos are admissible in evidence since the DPA “allows the processing of sensitive personal information when it relates to the determination of criminal liability of a data subject, and when necessary for the protection of lawful rights and interests of persons in court proceedings.”
In this case, the communications, photos, and videos were submitted in evidence to prosecute the accused, and to establish the legal claims of the minor victim, and such evidence were accordingly ruled as properly admitted.
5. Discussion of the Scope of the Supreme Court ruling
The Supreme Court ruling specifically applies to cases where the electronic evidence are “used to determine if a crime has been committed”. As such, the ruling squarely applies to criminal cases and has not been directly applied to other cases or proceedings, e.g. termination of employees.
Nevertheless, the Court’s discussion in the above ruling opens the possibility of validly using electronic evidence “for the protection of lawful rights and interests of persons in court proceedings” in general. Persons and companies who may be dealing with the establishment of legal claims or defenses potentially involving electronic evidence may therefore benefit from such discussion. Please note that the facts of each case must be carefully studied on its own merits, so please be sure to communicate with your lawyer for proper legal advice.
